On 2017-08-08 00:43, Stefan wrote:
P.S. The Graph class does way too much sorting. See e.g.
sage.graphs.generic_graph.GenericGraph.vertices()
I created https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22349 for that.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" gr
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Krenn wrote:
> On 2017-08-07 22:53, David Roe wrote:
>> >>> sorted([1,2,'a'])
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> File "", line 1, in
>> TypeError: '<' not supported between instances of 'str' and 'int'
>> [...]
>> Which still leaves t
On 2017-08-07 22:53, David Roe wrote:
> >>> sorted([1,2,'a'])
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "", line 1, in
> TypeError: '<' not supported between instances of 'str' and 'int'
> [...]
> Which still leaves the second part of Stefan's question: how do we get
> consiste
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, David Roe wrote:
Yet for a user looking at the examples of using such a function, it's nicer to
see
sage: my_func(inputs) # unordered
[A, C, B]
rather than
sage: set([str(c) for c in my_func(inputs)]) == set(["A","B","C"])
True
Maybe just
EXAMPLES::
sage: my_func(
> What bad practice are you referring to? The output of some functions are
> lists where the ordering is somewhat unpredictable. This different
> ordering can reveal itself in testing on different platforms, or with a
> changed package that Sage depends on. Yet for a user looking at the
>
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> On 07/08/2017 23:11, David Roe wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Vincent Delecroix <
>> 20100.delecr...@gmail.com
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> On 07/08/2017 22:53, David Roe wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2
On 07/08/2017 23:11, David Roe wrote:
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 07/08/2017 22:53, David Roe wrote:
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Vincent Delecroix <
20100.delecr...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 07/08/2017 19:47, David Roe wrote:> Bu
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> On 07/08/2017 22:53, David Roe wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Vincent Delecroix <
>> 20100.delecr...@gmail.com
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> On 07/08/2017 19:47, David Roe wrote:> But I think that Sage
>
On 07/08/2017 22:53, David Roe wrote:
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 07/08/2017 19:47, David Roe wrote:> But I think that Sage
integers should compare the same as python ints
I agree and with Python 3 you get an error
$ python
Pytho
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> On 07/08/2017 19:47, David Roe wrote:> But I think that Sage
>
>> integers should compare the same as python ints
>>
> I agree and with Python 3 you get an error
>
> $ python
> Python 3.6.2 (default, Jul 20 201
On 07/08/2017 19:47, David Roe wrote:> But I think that Sage
integers should compare the same as python ints
I agree and with Python 3 you get an error
$ python
Python 3.6.2 (default, Jul 20 2017, 03:52:27)
[GCC 7.1.1 20170630] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more
This does seem to be new. In Sage 7.2 (just one that I had handy),
sage: sorted([1,2,'a'])
[1, 2, 'a']
sage: sorted([1r,2r,'a'])
[1, 2, 'a']
This isn't that surprising, since the semantics of comparison have been
changing because of the upcoming switch to python 3. But I think that Sage
integers
Is this behavior new? I got it on my MacBook running the latest development
version. And, more importantly, what is the recommended way of writing
doctests for functions that return frozen sets with strings and integers?
In particular in light of Python 3 coming up...
sage: sorted([1,2,'a'])
13 matches
Mail list logo
